Re: [PATCH] SO_ZEROCOPY should rather return -ENOPROTOOPT

[Samuel Thibault]

Willem de Bruijn, le mar. 01 mars 2022 09:51:45 -0500, a ecrit:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 9:44 AM Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ENOTSUPP is documented as "should never be seen by user programs", and
> > is not exposed in <errno.h>, so applications cannot safely check against
> > it. We should rather return the well-known -ENOPROTOOPT.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> > index 4ff806d71921..6e5b84194d56 100644
> > --- a/net/core/sock.c
> > +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> > @@ -1377,9 +1377,9 @@ int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
> >                         if (!(sk_is_tcp(sk) ||
> >                               (sk->sk_type == SOCK_DGRAM &&
> >                                sk->sk_protocol == IPPROTO_UDP)))
> > -                               ret = -ENOTSUPP;
> > +                               ret = -ENOPROTOOPT;
> >                 } else if (sk->sk_family != PF_RDS) {
> > -                       ret = -ENOTSUPP;
> > +                       ret = -ENOPROTOOPT;
> >                 }
> >                 if (!ret) {
> >                         if (val < 0 || val > 1)
> 
> That should have been a public error code. Perhaps rather EOPNOTSUPP.
> 
> The problem with a change now is that it will confuse existing
> applications that check for -524 (ENOTSUPP).

They were not supposed to hardcord -524...

Actually, they already had to check against EOPNOTSUPP to support older
kernels, so EOPNOTSUPP is not supposed to pose a problem.

Samuel